Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 4
MSNBCW 4
CNNW 2
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
for the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. what's the latest, dana? >> reporter: wolf, the three republican senators who had vowed to block susan rice from being secretary of state if the president nominates her had really softened the rhetoric in recent days. i'm told the reason for that was because it was a curtesy in order for them to wait until they had a face-to-face meeting with her which was today. after that meeting their criticism was harsher than ever. the way these grim-faced gop senators tell it, susan rice's attempt to calm their criticism backfired. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> reporter: rice requested to meet with her chief republican critics in order to explain why five days after the september benghazi attack that killed four americans she went on sunday talk shows suggesting it was sparked by a spontaneous protest. >> the information given to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. >> reporter: accompanied b
rocked the west bank late into the night after the u.n. voted to declare palestinian territories a nonmember observer state. the only other entity to hold that position is the vatican, giving plichs reason to cheer but it also came as a huge disappointment to the united states, which had staunchly oppose this had measure, a sentiment echoed by israel. the vote was 138 in favor and nine opposed. u.s. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice had very different reactions to the decision. >> translator: we came to a firm legitimacy of the state that must now achieve its independence and that is palestine. >> we have always been clear that only through direct negotiations between the parties can the palestinians and israelis achieve the peace that both deserve. >> palestinians view the u.n. vote as a big step toward eventual statehood. hours before the u.n. general assembly vote, u.n. put out a statement on its official twitter account. we all do that but theirs had a glaring typo. this says, quote, on day of solidarity with palestinians, ban ki moon stresses urgency of reaching a one-state
preparing a u.n. resolution calling for a cease fire. probably our closest ally abroad in matters of war and peace is britain, and they are taking the same line as president obama, although they are being even more direct about it. the foreign secretary saying that hamas bares responsibility for what's going on, but he warns that "a ground invasion of gaza would lose israel a lot of the international support they have in this situation." a ground invasion is more difficult for the international community to sympathize with or support. so the world, at least the world of the united states and our allies is pretty much speaking with one voice here. israel, stop the ground work thing. that's the message from the president. that's the message from allies. that's the message from the international community. that's the message from the europeans. that's the message from the egyptians. and even though our own president is traveling abroad in asia, that's the word from the mouth of our own president. everybody agrees. except for one rogue state, i mean one red state. >> i think israel should do
will be coming and making a statement. i think is so important that the character of the un ambassador be clarified. it is our understanding from hearing two days of testimony that in fact what the un ambassador stated was the talking points that had been given approved declassified to the house intelligence committee. that is what i am told she restated. this member is absolutely convinced we are in it -- an accurate reflection of the intelligence community. that could be said at that time in a declassified manner. >> is the issue here that there were talking points that were classified -- >> there are many issues but i when the chairman and vice- chairman to speak as to the un ambassador. i will give a speech on the floor of the senate is still in session. >> we have gained important insights as to what has happened. i still believe there are questions that need to be answered. i think anybody with confusion in the basis of the two hearings, it is a premature conclusion. i am glad we have two morris sessions ahead of us. more people we need to talk to. it was helpful to have patraeus
a month or so ago saying that they thought the sexiest man alive was kim jong un. >> row under it. >> bill: the new 2-year-old head of north korea. we knew it was a joke. except the people of korea. they put out their leading newspaper -- >> in china. the chinese communist newspaper -- >> bill: this is great. one of ours has been declared the sexiest person on the planet. neil cavuto yesterday reported that story and then followed up by introducing john mccain to talk about susan rice but they got back and forth on the sexiest man alive. >> by the way i thought you were the sexiest man alive. >> you know, i was encouraged, senator. he's a bit chunky. this could be paving the way. but enough about me. >> maybe you were separated at birth. but anyway -- >> this is going to be a tough interview now senator. would have been nice but you've gone the other way. >> bill: i like neil cavuto. i've been on his vo many times. if i had to list the top 1,000 candidates for being the sexiest man alive, he would not make
intelligence says he was responsible for watering down -- editing, the talking points that u.n. embassador susan rice used when she went on five sunday talk shows, the famous picture of it, to talk about benghazi but you say a few days before the -- his office said they were responsible for editorring talking points, in a closed door hearing, james clapper told you and other senators he didn't know who was responsible. where does this investigation stand and how do you get to the bottom of it? >> well, it's like any other -- it's assumed the proportions of any other major scandal. there are many layers onion. all kinds of questions raised. i saw the director of national intelligence say he didn't know where these talking points were edited. and now he's saying he did. we'll be interested how that transpired. the biggest aspect of this whole thing is it's got to be looked into, why there was such a failure on the part of the administration in light of events the two attacks on our embassy, the assassination attempt on the british embassador, they closed their -- all this long train of event
that has nothing to do with health food. >> it's turning into a proxy war between senator john mccain and u.n. ambassador susan rice. top intelligence officials say they knew from the beginning that terrorism was involved in the attacks but kept rice's comments vague to avoid compromising future legal proceedings. they knew terrorism was involved but didn't know whether the attacks were planned in advance and they didn't have the suspect's identity. still, many house repub cans are saying he's unfit to succeed secretary clinton at the state department. >> i'm just curious. john heilman, first of all -- >> elizabeth warren. >> let's just say what happened, okay? the president's punch line was al qaeda is on the run, blah, blah, blah. they politicized intel. guess what, white houses do that. i'm not shocked, i'm not stunned. i wish they wouldn't have done it. but how do you protect americans in the future and what happened after the ambassador was already killed? but how long has susan rice been in public service, like since her 20s, right? >> a long time. >> so we actually have people on capit
several examples of massive united nations lead interventions where the u.n. moved in and established a presence in iraq and afghanistan. it was u.s. and nato lead. in the middle east and north africa particularly in these countries we are discussing something new is happening. in some respects the international community learning to do things differently. we are not going back to what we have done in the last 20 years. we are going to do it in a different way and has an international community we are learning what that process is and if you are on the ground you can see it. a lot of people -- there's a hesitancy about this intervention and this involvement that is quite telling and wasn't there in the past. >> thank you. >> i would like to know -- i am abigail woodward and i would like to know how women's rights are being protected and advanced and i would like to know if the muslim brotherhood has seen this debate impediment to that and how the constitutions are including them. >> let's start with the most significant case, constitutional issues and the role of the muslim brotherhoo
to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. host: president obama at a press conference today. the ambassador he was talking about is susan rice. here is an image of her in "the washington times." our question for you this morning is about the white house national security team. here is what steve tweets -- morris in san diego and joins us now, a republican color. caller: i have no confidence whatsoever in this national security team. i have less confidence a denture the president. i think this whole thing leads right to the white house. write to the oval office. president obama has made some statements already there are so contradictory there is no way he can explain the contradiction of his comments. you talk about a transparent administration -- yes, there are transparent. you can see right through them. there are as corrupt as any i have seen. i think this will lead to impeachment. i think he will be convicted of it as well. host: here is
of some year. >> bill: but why? what's un-american about raising taxes? >> look, no one likes -- the same way that no one likes spending cuts and don't forget the complaints about the -- if you're going to complain about the deficit or be worried about it, you can't say i'm worried about the deficit but don't do this. >> bill: right. >> i don't want to pay anymore which i hear a lot. i don't want to pay anymore either but i also would like to get us out -- >> bill: i don't want to pay anymore but i'm glad to pay my fair share and i do. >> that's the way i feel when i do my tax returns every year. this is a pain but i'm happy to do it and i actually think i get a lot of value for what i pay. >> bill: they say we're doing this in the legacy of ronald reagan. bull you know what. ronald reagan raised taxes five times. >> reagan would have no place in the current republican party given some of the things they did. grover norquist holds him up as an icon. grover is in a completely different place than he is on t
'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and besmirch her reputation is outrageous. and, you know, we are after an election now. i think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in benghazi, and i'm happy to cooperate in any ways that congress wants. we have provided every bit of information that we have and we will continue to provide information, and we've got a full blown investigation. and all the information will be be scorched to congress. i don't think there's any debate in this country that when you're four americans killed, that's a problem. we've got to get to the bottom of it. there needs to be accountability. we've got to bring those who carried it out to justice. they won't be any debate from me on that. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they think she is an easy target, then they've got a problem with me. and should i choose, if i think that she would be the best person
. host: here is an interesting article. if all or on twitter says, what about the u.n. watchers that have been followed with threats of arrest? who are they and what are they here? -- why are they here? guest: they have come to elections in the last 20 years and moderate them. to be clear in terms of what they actually do the polls now, they are not trying to intervene in anything that is going on. they are observers. they are watching what is happening. they are taking notes. i actually got to see their observer form on saturday. at the end of the election, they come up with a report to talk about how the election went, how the system operated. it is something that happens all over the world. my view, it is really bad form for the attorney-general from texas, and also the secretary of state from iowa, who basically say we will arrest these observers as they come out and see our with elections. the truth of the matter is, we should be transparent about this process and willing to let people see how our elections run. host: from fox news, greta van susteren said, the election is none of th
commitment. all of the foreign aid is spent right here in america un-american jobs. that is when the requirements. we need to gather up our allies and protect the people who serve in our state department we can secure them, they shouldn't be there. >> moderator: i'm going to go forward, but what you think should be the basic guiding principles, speaking a bit more probably? berg: if you are referring to dollars spent, or in general, our foreign policy, america is the leader of the world. we need to look where there are opportunities to create democracies come and we need to be supportive of those. you know, one of the been challenges that we have is iran. iran is, you know, getting close to having nuclear capabilities. from a foreign policy standpoint, we have to support the democracy that we have with israel there and will be can to prevent them from having nuclear capabilities. the next step is to move nuclear bombs very easily around the world. as it relates to our foreign policy, we need to try and again, make sure that americans interests are kept first and we need to be clo
news. >> when you have four people dead, including the first u.n. ambas -- u.s. ambassador in more than 30 years, how do you call that hype? >> how many security contractors died in iraq? do you know? >> i don't. >> no. nobody does because nobody cared. we know that several hundred died but there was never an official count done of security contractors in iraq. so when i see this focus on what was essentially a small fire fight, i think number one -- i've covered a lot of fire fights, it is impossible to figure out what happens in them sometimes and second, i think that the emphasis on benghazi has been political partly because fox was operating as a wing of the republican party. >> all right, thank you. >> you're welcome. >> bill: let's play it again. he says you're welcome. >> never ask a question you don't know the answer to. >> bill: you're welcome. get outta here! cut his mic. apparently he reported that the producer told him after the interview -- after they pulled the plug, the producer said you
for conflict. and i would look to the state department to carry this into the u.n. so that we get to the international forum particularly if it continues to escalate. member to come to frame that a declaratory policy for the nations that are not -- that have the servers that may not be partisan bidding so that it's clear, and then to start to think of other diplomatic actions that could potentially be taken to cut off the escalation of this activity or its attacks on us or on a larger group etc. >> but i don't want to take off the table actions on the diplomatic actions because i think that we have exhausted many of the potential diplomatic actions. and so we need to think about what are ways to send a strong signal to the leadership in x land and other places by some other actions in putting perhaps covert action. >> quick question, so far the u.s. government has said nothing publicly about who is behind the attacks. there's speculation in the media based on the leaks of incredible sources that the u.s. government has said nothing publicly. what is your decision as to whether or
and a person i am proud to call my friend and more proud to call my u.n. ambassador and would be even more proud to call her my secretary of state. so let us be clear it is unfair and i think unpatriot tick to assume that the chief diplomat would woefully, purposefully mislead the american public. to be come police to us in this tragedy at all is offensive. i think we need to get back to the nation's business and finding the real cull patriots who took the lives of the four americans. we need to leave the full weight of the american government to find those cull patriots and leave ambassador rice alone to do her job. let's get back to the work of the american people. >> as you can see there is a great deal of passion on this issue and to close us out it's going to be a good friend and colleague of ours from california who herself has had years of distinguished leadership in the california assembly as the speaker. mad dam speaker. and really understands leadership abilities and what they are. it's very difficult to recruit qualified women and senator mccain should know that. it is very diff
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)